Kenya should not allow war to swim in the sea of Turkana oil

In So Many Hungers, Indian writer Bhabani Bhattacharya writes that ‘war swims in the sea of oil’. From Kuwait, whose oil-rich underbelly triggered the Gulf War of the early 1990s, to Libya, oil has fuelled the interest of global capitalists, and sparked fear that if not controlled, undemocratic states could buy arms illegally, fund terrorist groups and threaten world peace.

Indeed, quite a few of these rogue states, drunk on oil funds, have been financing terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. I remember a delegation from Kenya paid a visit to former Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi at the height of his campaigns for an imaginary United States of Africa. And I shudder to imagine what projects these Kenyans would have initiated had Gaddafi doled out millions of dollars to them. Of course, some of these fears are unfounded, like in the case of Washington’s pre-war claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The whole world was shocked! The tomahawks and tanks roared into Iraq, before the weapons of mass destruction turned out to be weapons of mass deception!

Now, the discovery of oil in Turkana may not become the centre of world geopolitics like Kuwait and Iraq, or even Libya. The real danger, though, lies not even in the fear that warlords may keep fuelling war as they have done in Somalia and Congo to create a smokescreen under the cover of which they continue profiteering from stolen minerals. The danger for Kenya is simply that the people in places where mineral deposits have been found may feel robbed of their right to share the benefits.

One may argue that in the case of Turkana, there is a clear agreement that the drilling company would (decreasingly) be a partner for ‘only’ four years, after which the oil money will start flowing exclusively to Kenya. The argument goes that once the Government starts getting the full proceeds from oil, then existing laws will determine how the people of Turkana will benefit from the proceeds. This is, to be a bit blunt, arrant nonsense. First, the perception has already been deeply ingrained that there is a deliberate attempt to divert the oil and its proceeds from the community. For, even before they received the ‘good news’ about the black gold, millions of shillings had already exchanged hands as speculators and law firms moved to cash in on the land blocks!

Besides, the Turkana were not represented when oil blocks were being mapped out and drilling agreements signed. These issues will be difficult to explain away. But perhaps the big discomfort is the perception that four years is a very long time to allow the drilling company to take the lion’s share of the proceeds. Experts warn that after four years, it is possible that what will be left for the Government and the people of Turkana are desolate and exhausted empty lakes that will most probably have adverse effects on the environment, and no oil. Do you still need lessons on how historical injustices come to be?

Well, it may be true that war has been fought in many countries over oil, but not all wars in the world have been as a result of oil. It may also be true that some oil-rich countries have violated rights and sponsored terrorism, but like in the case of Norway, some have recorded massive growth thanks to vast oil resources.

The difference has to do with governance. A closed and unaccountable government like Gaddafi’s Libya and Saddam’s Iraq were bound to arouse suspicion on where they pumped their oil billions. More importantly, a country where a few people rush to boardrooms to sign agreements with oil drilling companies is likely to arouse suspicion that government officials may be using their big offices to line their pockets and those of their cronies at the expense of the communities that ‘own’ the oil blocks. And that is when discord sets in and as Bhattacharya would have it, war starts swimming in the sea of oil.

Writer is Production Editor, The County Weekly, a publication of the Standard Group.